Mann forced to apologise after being placed in office ‘dilemma’
FORMER Nottinghamshire MP John Mann has been ordered to apologise for breaking rules on the use of his House of Lords office.
Lord Mann, who served as Bassetlaw’s Labour MP from 2001 until 2019, says he has been placed in a “dilemma” about the use of his office which needs to be sorted out by the “powers that be”.
Then Prime Minister Theresa May appointed Lord Mann as the Government’s independent adviser on antisemitism in 2019, a role he still holds. After announcing in 2019 that he would not be standing again as Bassetlaw’s MP due to his unhappiness over Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of Labour, Mrs May also included him in her resignation honours list.
This meant he was introduced as an independent member of the House of Lords.
But in a report published on March 27, the House of Lords conduct committee says he breached the code of conduct twice.
The report found that Lord Mann failed to register support he had received from the Antisemitism Policy Trust for his role as the Government’s antisemitism advisor.
It also says Lord Mann used his office for his work as antisemitism advisor when it should only have been used for his role as a member of the House of Lords.
The committee concluded that Lord Mann should write a letter of apology to its chair. The report said: “At the end of his investigation, the commissioner found that Lord Mann had breached both provisions of the code.
He expressed sympathy with Lord Mann’s predicament, in that the Government, when appointing him as Independent Adviser on Antisemitism, provided him neither with office accommodation nor civil service support.
“But he rightly noted that it is for members of the House themselves to ensure that they comply with the House’s rules.” The ruling comes after Lord Mann was recently cleared over a separate complaint, relating to leaflets distributed by his wife.
In a statement on the conduct committee’s report, Lord Mann said: “Government specified that I didn’t have an office in Whitehall and presumed Parliament would provide one. Now Parliament says Government must provide an office, as the rules do not allow one in Parliament. I look forward to the powers that be sorting this dilemma out and thank the standards committee for their report.”